United States v. Yan Naing, No. 15-2153 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, a citizen of Burma, pleaded guilty to one count of failing to depart because he willfully failed or refused "to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary" for his departure after the BIA held that he was removable. Reviewing defendant's due process challenges de novo, the court concluded that the IJ did not violate due process by proceeding without an affirmative waiver of counsel from defendant where defendant waived his right to representation. Furthermore, defendant suffered no prejudice from not having been told of his right to appeal. The court rejected defendant's contention that he was given no reasonable opportunity to examine evidence against him because he did not receive a translated copy of the 2011 State Department report on human rights in Burma used to reject his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Finally, the court concluded that the district court committed no error precluding defendant from raising a coercion defense because the evidentiary predicate for a successful coercion defense is lacking. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Arnold, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - deportation. Naing challenges his conviction for failing to depart, claiming he was not subject to a valid final order of removal because of due process errors in the deportation proceedings. Upon de novo review of the due process challenges, no fundamental unfairness was present, as the immigration judge advised Naing of his right to counsel, provided information for obtaining an attorney at his first hearing, and was justified in assuming he otherwise waived his right to representation when he appeared at the second hearing without an attorney; Naing was not prejudiced by any failure to advise him of his right to judicial review; and Naing did not show how the result would have different had he received a translated copy of a human rights report. District court did not err in precluding Naing from raising a coercion defense because the evidentiary predicate for such a defense was lacking. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.